VulnerabilityPublished 25 Apr 2024Updated 21 Jan 2026

CVE-2024-3623: Plaintext Storage of a Password

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 Apr 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-3623, organizations should immediately avoid using the default database secret key provided by mirror-registry during Quay installation. Instead, generate a unique, strong secret key for each deployment and ensure it is securely stored using secrets management solutions such as HashiCorp Vault, Kubernetes Secrets with encryption at rest, or cloud provider key management services. Review and update all existing Quay deployments installed via mirror-registry to replace the default secret key with a unique one, followed by re-encrypting or rotating database credentials as necessary. Limit access to configuration files and deployment environments to trusted administrators only, and implement strict access controls and monitoring to detect unauthorized access attempts. Additionally, organizations should monitor for any suspicious activity related to Quay database access and apply network segmentation to restrict exposure of the registry backend. Stay alert for official patches or updates from Quay or mirror-registry maintainers and apply them promptly once available. Finally, incorporate secret management best practices into the deployment pipeline to prevent similar issues in future releases.

Description

A flaw was found when using mirror-registry to install Quay. It uses a default database secret key, which is stored in plain-text format in one of the configuration template files. This issue may lead to all instances of Quay deployed using mirror-registry to have the same database secret key. This flaw allows a malicious actor to access sensitive information from Quay's database.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-3623 is the compromise of confidentiality for organizations using Quay deployed via mirror-registry. Attackers who obtain the default database secret key can access sensitive information stored in the Quay database, which may include container image metadata, user credentials, or other confidential data. This exposure can lead to further attacks such as lateral movement within the network or data exfiltration. Since the secret key is reused across deployments, a single compromise can affect multiple organizations if the key is leaked publicly or shared. The vulnerability does not directly affect data integrity or availability, but the loss of confidentiality can undermine trust in the container registry and potentially disrupt operations if sensitive data is exposed. Organizations relying on Quay for container image management, especially in cloud-native or DevOps environments, face increased risk of data breaches and compliance violations if this vulnerability is not addressed promptly.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…